View Single Post
Old April 17, 2008, 11:17 AM   #42
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 20,814
What is the difference between shooting to kill and shooting until the threat is eliminated?
One difference is intent and if you believe that intent doesn't matter to the law you need to do more research. The other difference is that a threat can be eliminated without death being the result. In fact, in more than 80% of the cases where a gun is used in self-defense the attacker isn't even injured. In the majority of the remaining cases the attacker survives.
My opinion is that the "threat eliminated" argument was created by defense lawyers to defend police in these shooting incidents?
Your opinion is incorrect, although you're welcome to it.
If I shoot my pistol at someone until the threat is eliminated, I believe that person would probably be dead.
Demonstrably false. 80% of those shot with a handgun survive. Furthermore the majority of gun self-defense cases don't require that the attacker be shot at all.
Am I thinking correctly that this terminology was just created by administrators and defense attornies to help out their police comrades when their gun gets a little too wild?
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Page generated in 0.04129 seconds with 7 queries